Unless you have something like 5-10000$ invested in Canon glass, when you factor everything in, switching is not a big loss money-wise.

How big "big" is depends on the net gain/loss after buying new equipment - and I know my equipment hasn't got pristine looks because I'm outdoors a lot and horses and such are always interested in inspecting my camera up close :-)

*And* then there's the psychological factor (I'm with Canon since the mid-90s) *and* the Canon/Nikon usability differences *and* the time/hassle to actually switch (time is money). So imho the threshold is very high, that's why Canon gets away with being current Canon.

In my case yes, they translated into action

Yes, the interface is different, menu layout is different etc. I also had the same feelings, as for everything in life one always has doubts leaving the known for the unknown. However, I'm not a pro, so I'm not losing money while I get used to the new interface - which btw only takes about one week between reading the manual and actually figuring out the instructions practically. I seriously miss certain things from Canon, but then you see how photos look like and you just forget about everything else. I think I got the best camera/lenses in their price range with the D600, 85/1.8G and Sigma 35/1.4. I feel again like I am the limiting factor.

The fact is, as long as people keep buying Canon stuff, Canon will be encouraged to go down this way. In one sense I did a favor to myself and everyone by not buying any product from Canon's recent offering.

The fact is, as long as people keep buying Canon stuff, Canon will be encouraged to go down this way. In one sense I did a favor to myself and everyone by not buying any product from Canon's recent offering.

+1 - thanks, since I want to keep on using Magic Lantern I hope Canon gets a grip either feature or price-wise. I like my current equipment, but the outlook seems not so bright (mediocre 6d, expensive lenses, isolated rt flash system).

It's just the latest non-innovation/high-price policy that annoys me as I'm not mr. Rich, but at least it's somehow comforting I'm not alone with this opinion because two years ago anyone saying anything against Canon's policy would have been flamed down or penalized with negative Karma :-)

21MP APS C Fair enough for a APS-C sensor Nooooo! I want a 22.3MP sensor so that it can pixel bind to 1080p instead of line-skipping so we can reduce morie like in the 5D3, why would they push it so close but not give us the clean 5D3 image. I'd much rather prefer another 18Mp sensor with better image quality but if Canon is worried about marketing another 18mp sensor then fine go to 20 but why push it any further then that?!

19 AF Points all Cross maybe will be a faster AF ( due to the DIGIC 5 processors... I personally prefer a strong 19 AF point instead of a crippled 51 AF. Agreed, I kinda prefer the 19pt because it has a better spread of cross-type points, squeezing a "full frame" AF sensor into APS-C might not work as well

On chip phase detect pixels for liveview and AF trackingexpected featureOh, well that answers my "Why are they still line-skipping?!" question, but again why push it so close to 22.3 needlessly? ...(this better not be a 7D).

GPS, WiFigood for distance remote control when shooting wildlife I think this is an 8D!

I agree with what many already posted, that would be disappointing for a 7DII -- no dual card slots, no better AF (I have a 7D, and I am not satisfied with its AF for fast moving action, but that could also be a lack of skill on my side ).

At the same time, it is way overspeced for a 70D (10fps, weather sealing etc.)

So if this really to be the 7DII, the only reason that could make me buy it is that is has a significant improvement in sensor performance (RAW!, not JPEG... I do not need better in-camera NR, LR will always be better at that), and that it stays in a reasonable price range (i.e., a good deal below the 6D, 1500€ at most).

But neither do I think that Canon made some miraculous leap in sensor technology, that somehow didn't make it in their recent FF offerings, but now happens to be available for some APS-C camera, nor do I believe that Canon will suddenly return to reason in terms of their pricing policy.

One line somewhat caught my eye, though:

"Viewfinder LCD Higher Resolution Than 7D"The 7D's viewfinder LCD consists of discretely etched, "shaped" elements. The grid lines, AF points, digits etc. are not created of pixels, but are more comparable to the display of, e.g., an LCD wrist watch. So a statement like "higher resolution" IMO makes little sense - so little, that it could easily discredit this entire CR1 rumor to be utter BS.The only reason (aside from a 7DII getting a EVF instead of an OVF) that this could make some sense is that they now have a pixel matrix in some areas of the viewfinder to be more flexible with regards to the info they display.

I hope the new APS-C sensors are good. Loved everything about the 7D apart form the IQ was very disappointed. Even if you look on DXO compare it to a 40D there is barely any difference.

I am personally not even that happy with the 7D's AF (after all the praise it received, I had just expected more precision and better tracking), but I fully agree that the high ISO performance of the sensor was not too hot even 3+ years ago. ISO 1600 is barely acceptable, ISO 3200 for emergencies at best.With the 5DIII being to expensive for an amateur, the 6D being underwhelming, I was really hoping for the 7DII although I had preferred to go FF, but at the added cost of replacing at least 3 lenses, I guess I can live with APS-C. So if the 7DII turns out to be about that, I might finally sell my two Canon bodies, 6 Canon lenses, 3 third party lenses, and accessories and get a D600 with 24-70 (the Tamron looks great, BTW), 70-200 2.8, a third party macro and WA lens, and take the rest of the revenue and put it into some other hobby.

That's interesting - what do you miss that Nikon/d600 doesn't have? Or is it just some hardware that hasn't got a 1:1 Nikon equivalent?

Some things aren't easily replaced 1:1. Ergonomic, certain lenses, etc. one always have to compromise in one way or another. I just decided that IQ and value were my priorities. To the other things one just gets used eventually, or you just get there in some other way. Most of it is just flat out habit.

I also liked my canon gear, and I would be happy to use canon again. But not if it requires paying more to get less than competing products.

What are the chances that this is equivalent to the commonly used engineering term "test bed"?

In this case the example camera might be only a combination of features being tested, some of which may may not appear in any one(or more) future camera(s), if the testing provides satisfactory results.

Those results might indicate needed "tweaking" before the a feature is incorporated into any camera that is to be actually marketed.

In other words, this "test" camera may not be intended, in current form, to be the actual 7DII, or 70D, ...or anything else BUT a "test" platform.

* AF tracking in live view? Come on, that has to be a joke - unless this a completely other design the af pixels on the sensor only tell the camera which way to contrast af.

FTFA: "On chip phase detect pixels for liveview and AF tracking"

Of course it is a complete redesign; this is phase-detection AF (how the lens diverges the light, and fast because the camera "knows" which way to focus depending on how the light waves have diverged) rather than contrast detection (which is slow because complex algorithms have to figure out when the image is sharpest and the camera can't know which way the light has diverged). In order to integrate phase detection, unless they're being really clever with the use of photosites' data and taking the color shift of the bayer filter into account, the sensor will have specialized "pixels" to dedicate to focus. It would be similar to the normal phase detect AF sensor already in every Canon DSLR, except miniaturized and integrated into the image sensor. Based on TFA, we can assume that they are integrating miniaturized phase-detect pixels directly into the sensor.

This will be a huge win for videographers, especially with the release of more and more STM lenses. The 7D can AF during video recording, but thanks to contrast detect it is slow since the camera has to "guess" which way to move the lens, and how far it should move. With phase detect AF (assuming sufficient light for phase detection to work) it knows pretty precisely which direction the lens needs to move, and by how much.

Quote

* GPS/WiFi - so we can expect the camera to miss the external flash (that's where the antennas are) and you have to buy a €300 or €500 (with af assist) piece of equipment just to control off-camera flash just like the 6d? That's probably also the reason why there still is no built-in rt controller even in these 7d2 specs... thanks. Canon.

If DR improvement is not mentioned it won't happen, so we shouldn't expect it or speculate about it. Same sensor as the 650D but smaller (more noisy) pixels, faster readout, better AF and Body. I'd call this camera a 6.5D.

SRSLY?

It's not like they take the exact design they had before, shrink it down, and then add a few pixels around the edges to increase the resolution. IF that was how they made higher resolution sensors, you'd be right. Compare today's 18MP sensor to the D2000/DCS520's 2.0MP sensor at ISO 12,800. Oh right, today's 18MP sensor is more usable at its expanded ISO than yesterday's 2.0MP sensor is at ISO 800.

Plus 1 too... The 7DII needs to be more than this, fine with resolution stated, fine also with wifi and gps built in (easy extra sales point = higher price = higher profit margin = keep selling cameras) the AF needs to be top notch for crop at 40+ points, otherwise, the real game changer can only by the performance of the sensor which in my opinion, needs to outperform the lesser crop models, not recycle the same tech.

Are you willing to pay the price of the old APS-H model for the 7D? I ask, because that is the level of functionality that many in here seem to be demanding.

AF point count? Mexapixels? How about the fact that the 7D dedicates a processor to AF, and that it has ALL cross-type points with a high-precision center point, which is better than Nikon's system? What about durability and weather sealing? Tendency toward excessively high Moire (no low-pass filter)?

What about ergonomics? Still is lacking on Nikon.

What about the fact that when the megapixel race was going on, people were slamming both companies for increasing resolution?

The truth is, people love to whine regardless of whether Canon moves to increase or decrease resolution, increase AF point count or decrease it, and hell, some people even complain that they don't want to pay for video features or for fast burst mode. For those folk, rather than buying the more appropriate Rebel or "super rebel" XXD, they whine and moan about the pro features the 7D has. The thing is, the pro features that make up an XD model isn't rooted in megapixel count, whether or not it includes wifi, or number of AF points. It comes down to image quality, ergonomics, durability, and a mix of all of the features offered by that particular camera body.

Quote

Wait for the D400. It might be superior, if this 7D specs are true. And the D400 will be - again - cheaper....

Canon, hurry up and make it better!

Eventually Nikon will come out with something better (then certain people will threaten to jump ship to Nikon), then Canon will leapfrog them again, and people will threaten to leave Nikon for Canon. Those people blow lots of money on gear just for bragging rights, but don't even know why the gear is designed the way it is. That's fine and all (your early-adopter gadget freak mentality in essence subsidizes my gear purchase thanks to the economies of scale!! ) but unfortunately that vocal few is the people who flood forums here and dpreview with all of the negativity.

If those do end up being the specs I wouldn't be too surprised. If they did add the dual slots and 61pt af then the only reason to get the 5DMIII would be for full frame, I think they want a little more seperation than that between the lines.

Since the 650/700D have had the same AF system that the 60D has it is more likely that the 70D will have a better system. The most plausible AF system for the 70D (with the least R&D for Canon) is the 19 pt out of the current 7D. To make the next jump therefore, the 7Dmk2 would have to have a better AF than the 70D which would suggest more than 19pts. Again to save R&D the 61pt would be handy!!! IMHO I don't think a major jump in ISO or noise control will be in the upcoming generation of camera, yes the settings may be there but if they have the NR to be useful is another matter.